Forum: Program and politics

Pentagon F-35 program chief lashes Lockheed, Pratt

By Jane Wardell
Published February 27, 2013
Reuters

"AVALON, Australia (Reuters) - The Pentagon program chief for the F-35 [U.S. Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan] warplane slammed its commercial partners Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney on Wednesday, accusing them of trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government and failing to see the long-term benefits of the project."

""What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine," Bogdan told reporters at the Australian International Airshow in southern Victoria state.

"I want them both to start behaving like they want to be around for 40 years," he added. "I want them to take on some of the risk of this program, I want them to invest in cost reductions, I want them to do the things that will build a better relationship. I'm not getting all that love yet.""

"Bogdan caused a stir shortly after joining the F-35 program last August when he described the relationship between the government and Lockheed Martin as the worst he'd ever seen. There had been little improvement since then, he said.

"Are they getting better? A little bit," he said. "Are they getting better at a rate I want to see them getting better? No, not yet.""

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/02 ... z2M73Wyjm3

F-16.net Sponsor

He's not the first to accuse them of profiteering. Understandable given the financial situation.

Well that proves the government side of the contract is pristine and innocent, that all the delays and cost increases are the fault of industry.

No government mandated changes in scope of work or technology improvements or delays due to late decision making.

Because the government is always perfect and industry is always nasty & greedy.

Must be part of that greedy 1% Obama is always whining about.

Same story above posted here earlier: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23017.html

luke_sandoz wrote:

Well that proves the government side of the contract is pristine and innocent, that all the delays and cost increases are the fault of industry.

No government mandated changes in scope of work or technology improvements or delays due to late decision making.

Because the government is always perfect and industry is always nasty & greedy.

Must be part of that greedy 1% Obama is always whining about.

Well there may be a valid point. Why did the AMRAAM D end up costing the same as a Meteor, which is a brand-new, ground-up missile rather than simply an enhanced variant of an existing missile?

Couldn't resist commenting, signed up just for [Link pending approval]

B-2 initial order: 132
B-2 final buy: 22

F-22 initial order: 750
F-22 final buy: 187

No exports allowed, no more production, just recoup your R&D expenses and live off upgrades, if [Link pending approval]

What I mean is, you want anyone to plan strategically "for the next 40 years" when your customer has such a history? I would do the same on their [Link pending approval] try to profit while I can.

luke_sandoz wrote:

Well that proves the government side of the contract is pristine and innocent, that all the delays and cost increases are the fault of industry.

No government mandated changes in scope of work or technology improvements or delays due to late decision making.

Because the government is always perfect and industry is always nasty & greedy.

Must be part of that greedy 1% Obama is always whining about.

I agree, Its a two-way street. But hey showing LM the underside of a bus has been popular for years now.

Very interesting how you guys are vouching for LM here. It's not exactly like they're hurting for cash... They just want to make more, like all other companies. Of course, when you want to make more than the trillions they will near-inevitably bring in with this project, you have to seriously consider whether or not their hearts are in the right place. Apparently the guy running the goverment side of the program doesn't think so. It doesn't change that the F-35 is an incredibly innovative airplane from an innovative company, but just because they make a great product does not mean LM is a perfect entity.

firstimpulse wrote:

LM is a perfect entity.

well we did say that Rolling Eyes

Our only point is that like most good court cases, both sides have valid arguments and its not as cut and dry as LM=bad.

There is a helluva a lot of blame to go around. Maybe GE would have been more government friendly, but the government canceled it.

I hope one day there a books about the JSF program from concept to service, that have all the nitty gritty behind the scenes drama good and bad. It will be quite a tale.

Last edited by firstimpulse on Feb 27, 2013 - 09:32 PM; edited 1 time in total

f414/euro/gripenng/sbug wrote:

firstimpulse wrote:

LM is a perfect entity.

well we did say that Rolling Eyes

Just wondering, but have you ever put forth a non-sarcastic reply? Shocked

uclass wrote:

luke_sandoz wrote:

Must be part of that greedy 1% Obama is always whining about.

Well there may be a valid point. Why did the AMRAAM D end up costing the same as a Meteor, which is a brand-new, ground-up missile rather than simply an enhanced variant of an existing missile?

Someone is going to have to explain this logic to me. As far as I can tell the UK alone will spend 1 billion pounds on development and demonstration of this weapon. That is aside from the cost of building the rounds themselves. If the UK bought 1,000 rounds and paid nothing else at all (unrealistic) they would "cost" 1 million pounds a piece by the accounting you are applying to the AIM-120D. That is damn near the same as AMRAMM-D before you manufacture the freaking round itself.

firstimpulse wrote:

Of course, when you want to make more than the trillions they will near-inevitably bring in with this project, you have to seriously consider whether or not their hearts are in the right place.

Trillions? As for Bogdan unfortunate he can't disagree without being disagreeable.

Or he may just be saying what needs to be said. Without strong oversight government contracting can often turn into nothing short of a scam.

I have seen too many times when project managers find it easier to just agree with the contractor on everything rather than look out for the government's interests... just look at the performance awards Lockheed continued to receive for the F-35 even as it fell farther behind schedule and over cost.

hobo wrote:

Or he may just be saying what needs to be said. Without strong oversight government contracting can often turn into nothing short of a scam.

I have seen too many times when project managers find it easier to just agree with the contractor on everything rather than look out for the government's interests... just look at the performance awards Lockheed continued to receive for the F-35 even as it fell farther behind schedule and over cost.

Not saying he should agree, more a matter of management style contrasting with his immediate,predecessor who I credit with turning the program around. Butting heads goes,with the job and the General is well equipped to push the interests,of his constituency.

""No government mandated changes in scope of work or technology improvements or delays due to late decision making. ""

I hear this on occasion.
Does someone have a list of all these difficult Government mandated changes , scope of work mods and late decisions?